Jharkhand High Court
Unknown vs (Deleted) on 28 November, 2022
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
SA No. 201 of 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Second Appeal No. 201 of 2005
(Against the judgment and decree dated 05.05.2005 passed by the
learned Additional District Judge, FTC- IV, Chatra in Title Appeal
No. 19 of 2000).
1(a)(i) Most. Shanti Devi
1(a)(ii) Sanjay Pasi
1(a) (iii) Raju Pasi
1(a)(iv) Ranjit Pasi
1(a)(v) Rakhi Kumari (minor) represented through her mother
Most. Shanti Devi
1(a) (i), W/o Late Ghuja Pasi, 1(a) (ii) to 1(a) (iv) are S/o Late
Ghuja Pasi and 1(a) (v) is D/o Late Ghuja Pasi, All residents of the
village- Tandawa, P.O. & P.S.- Tandawa, District- Chatra
1(b) Bishaswar Pasi
1(c) Saheshwar Pasi
1(d) Binod Pasi
1(e) Samud Pasi,
1(b) to 1(e) all S/o Late Guna Pasi, residents of the village-
Tandawa, P.S- Tandawa, District- Chatra
2. Faguni Devi, wife of Late Narayan Pasi
3. Jitendra Pasi, Son of Late Narayan Pasi
4. Rajendra Pasi, Son of Late Narayan Pasi,
All residents of village- Tandawa, P.S.- Tandawa, District- Chatra
... Defendants/Appellants/Appellants
Versus
1. (Deleted)
2. Md. Abdul
3. Md. Islam
4. Md. Nasim
5. Md. Sabir
No. 2 to 5, all sons of Late Jahur Mian, residents of village-
Bahera, P.S.- Tandawa, District- Chatra
6. (a) Reyaz Mian, S/o Late Jandi Mian
6. (b) Saliman Khatoon, W/o Late Razzak Mian, Both 6(a) and 6(b)
residents of village and P.O.- Bahera, P.S.- Piparwar, District-
Chatra
7. Chairman, Central Coal Fields Ltd., Darbhanga House, Ranchi
.... Plaintiffs / Respondents / Respondents
For the Appellants :Mr. P.P. N. Roy, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Pragati Prasad, Adv.
For the respondents : Mr. Amar Kr. Sinha, Adv.
: Mr. K.K.Ambastha, Adv.
: Mr. Vijay Kr. Sharma, Adv.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
1
SA No. 201 of 2005
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 05.05.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, FTC-IV, Chatra in Title Appeal No. 19 of 2000 by which learned First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree in Title Suit No. 7 of 1996 passed by learned Subordinate Judge-I, Chatra whereby and where under the suit of the plaintiff filed with a prayer for declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit land with a right to receive the compensation and job from the defendant no. 3 was decreed by court on contest against the defendant no. 1 and 2 and ex parte against the defendant no. 3 and the title of the plaintiff no.2 was declared on the suit land of Khata no. 124 of village Bahera for the purpose of receiving the compensation and the job if any from the defendant no. 3 in respect of acquisition of the said land and the title of the original plaintiff no. 1 - Jahur Mian represented through the legal heirs being the plaintiff no. 1 to 1/D was declared on the suit land of Khata no. 48 of village Bahera for the purpose of receiving compensation and job if any, from the defendant no. 3 in respect of the acquisition of the said land.
3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the suit land stood recorded in the name of Mathan Pasi, S/o Asha Pasi , in the last Cadastral Survey and Settlement Operation before filing the suit. The plaintiff further pleaded that Asha Pasi died leaving behind two sons namely Mathan Pasi and Ganpat Pasi. Ganpat Pasi died issueless in jointness with Mathan Pasi before the Cadastral Survey Operation; as such the suit land came to be recorded in the exclusive name of Mathan Pasi. Mathan Pasi died issueless sometime in the year 1929- 1930 and thus the branch of Asha Pasi became extinct and the land remained abandoned. The Kehwatdar of Kehwat No. 2 SA No. 201 of 2005 2 /3 resumed the lands of the aforesaid Khata and came in possession over the same. The plaintiff no. 2- Jhoudi Mian being a settled and occupancy raiyat of village - Bahera finding the lands of Kahata no. 124 as abandoned, began and started reclaiming the lands for cultivation purpose with oral permission of the ex-landlord and thereafter the ex- landlord being satisfied, settled the suit land i.e. the item no. I of schedule A of the plaint of an area of 1.02 Acres in Raiyati by grant of Hukumnama in the year 1954-55 and from the date of reclamation, plaintiff no. 2 came in and remained in possession. The plaintiff no. 2 paid rents to the ex- landlord and obtained Zamindari rent receipts. After vesting of the estate into the State of Bihar, the State of Bihar also recognized Jhoudi Mian as tenant. The plaintiff no. 1 of village Bahera, being a settled raiyat, finding the lands of Khata No. 45, measuring an area of 0.52 acres, applied for settlement before the Circle Officer, Tandwa, who registered Case No. 23/61-62 and issued notice calling for objection if any and called for reports from Halka Karamchari and the Circle Inspector. After due enquiry, the possession of Jahur Mian was found over 0.52 acres of land and the then Circle Officer, Tandwa settled the said land by grant of Parcha dated 11.12.1962 and since then, the plaintiff no. 1 is in khas cultivating possession and is also paying rent to the State of Bihar. The defendant no. 3 acquired the suit lands for colliery purposes. It is asserted that the plaintiffs as displaced persons are entitled to receive compensation as also for job, from the defendant no. 3. The plaintiff further asserted that the defendant nos. 1 and 2 are not related in any manner with the recorded tenant of Khata no. 28 and 124 and are the residents of village-Tandwa, 12 miles away from village Bahera where the suit lands are situated. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 filed an application for furnishing genealogy for grant of rent receipts in the year 1988 to the 3 SA No. 201 of 2005 Circle Officer, Tandwa who initiated the Case No. 112 /88- 89 and called for a report from revenue functionaries. It is asserted by the plaintiff that the defendant nos. 1 and 2 are not entitled for compensation or for any job from the defendant nos. 3 for the lands in suit. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit with the prayer, as already indicated above.
4. In their joint written statement, the defendant nos. 1 and 2 challenged the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds and further pleaded that Asha Pasi and Sodhna Pasi were full own brothers and had ancestral residence in village Tandwa. Both of them died before the survey operation and Asha Pasi died leaving behind two sons - Matna Pasi and Ganpat Pasi and Ganpat Pasi also died issueless before the survey operation, so Matna Pasi, looked after the toddy shop of joint family of Bahera village while Sodhna Pasi and Inder Pasi looked after the properties at Tandwa. The defendant claimed that the suit land was in joint possession of Matna Pasi and Sodhna Pasi but Matna Pasi died issueless leaving behind Sodhna Pasi as his uncle and the only nearest relative. After the death of Sodhna Pasi, his sons Inder Pasi and Juman Pasi inherited and came in possession and in partition among brothers, Inder Pasi was alone allotted the land of Khata no. 48 and 124 of village Bahera and his brother Juman Pasi was allotted the land elsewhere in Tandwa and when, he died, these defendants inherited and came in possession and running toddy shops at Bahera as well as Tandwa and have been in cultivating possessions of the lands of both Khata no. 48 as well 124 of the village - Bahera being the bonafide and full owners. It is also pleaded by the defendants that in case of abandonment of land, there is provision under Section 73 of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 that the landlord shall have to file petition before the Deputy Commissioner for declaration of land as abandonment as in this case no such order under section 73 4 SA No. 201 of 2005 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner as Sodhna Pasi, Inder Pasi were in possession of the land of Khata no. 48 and 124 and as such the lands of Khata no. 48 and 124 were never abandoned after the death of Matna Pasi.
5. On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed the following nine issues :-
(i) Is the suit as framed, maintainable?
(ii) Have the plaintiff's valid cause of action and right to sue?
(iii) Is the suit barred by limitation and adverse possession?
(iv) Is the suit bad for non-joinder of parties?
(v) Is the story of settlement taken by Jhoudi Mian correct?
(vi) Is the story of abandonment of suit land correct?
(vii) Have the plaintiffs subsisting right, title and interest over the suit land?
(viii) Are the plaintiffs entitled for compensation and job from defendant no. 3?
(ix) To what relief or reliefs if any, are the plaintiffs entitled?
6. Learned trial court first took up issue no. (v), (vi), (vii) and
(viii) and after considering the evidence in the record came to the conclusion that the defendants have failed to prove the relationship with their recorded tenants and as such, they failed to establish that they got the title of the suit in any way on the basis of the inheritance. It was also observed by the trial court that save and except the defendants, no one has come to challenge the possession over the suit land, either the State of Bihar or the other Raiyats of village Tandwa and as such in view of provisions under Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act, the ownership of the plaintiffs over the suit land on the basis of possession can be declared but as the plaintiffs besides their possessory title over suit land have brought the definite case of valid title on the basis of the abandonment of the suit land by the recorded tenant, the possession of the ex-landlord over the same and subsequent settlement of the said land in their favour and held that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land, not as trespassers rather they were in possession as owners of the lands on the basis of settlement. Learned trial court 5 SA No. 201 of 2005 also observed that Section 26 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 wherein it has been provided that save as otherwise expressly provided in the said Act, no civil court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter; which the Central Government or the competent authority or any person is empowered by or under the said Act to determine. But there is no specific forum under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 to decide the right and title of a person, claiming to be interested in the acquired land and not admitted by the authority under the Act so in view of Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, as the defendants have neither taken this plea in the written statement regarding the jurisdiction of the court nor at the time of framing of issues and hence, no issue was framed when argument was advanced but still it was held by the trial court that the civil court has the jurisdiction to interfere with the suit and answered the issues nos. (v), (vi), (vii) and (viii) in favour of the plaintiffs and in affirmative. Learned trial court thereafter, took up issue no. (iii) and held that the suit is not time barred and disposed of issue no. (i) as not pressed.
7. Learned trial court next took up issue no. (iv) and came to the conclusion that the suit does not suffer from defects of the parties being not impleaded. Lastly, the trial court took up issue no. (ii) and (ix) together and came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have got good cause of action and right to sue and they are entitled to the reliefs as claimed and decreed the suit as already indicated above.
8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by trial court, the defendant no. 1 and 2 filed Title Appeal no. 19 of 2000 and by the impugned judgment, learned first appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment passed by the trial court, as already indicated above.
6 SA No. 201 of 20059. Learned first appellate court formulated the following four points for determination:
"(i) Whether the suit is to be dismissed for non-payment of the ad valorem court fees?
(ii) Whether the title suit of the plaintiff is beyond the jurisdiction of the civil court in view of the section 26 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 and constitution of the tribunal under the said Act?
(iii) Whether the suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of the necessary parties being the Central Government?
(iv) Whether the decision of the court below in not accepting the contention of the defendants that they have perfected their title in respect of their suit land, is erroneous?"
10. Learned First Appellate Court first took up point for determination no. (i) and came to the conclusion that since the primary intention of the appellant is for determination of title hence there is no necessity of paying any ad valorem court fees and it is not proper to dismiss the suit merely because the ad valorem court fees was not deposited.
11. Learned First Appellate Court thereafter, took up point for determination no. (ii) and observed that the provision of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 does not confer the power of the declaration of right, title and interest in any competent authority and as such tribunal can determine the compensation payable to the parties if they have title over the land, hence, only civil court can make declaration of right, title and interest if any, in respect of the dispute that arises before the tribunal, hence it can not be held that Section 26 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 bars the jurisdiction of civil court, so far as the prayer for declaration of right, title and interest of a person over a property is concerned. Learned First Appellate Court thereafter, took up point for determination no. (iii) and came to the conclusion that the Central Government and the State Government are not the necessary parties to the suit, hence, for their non- impleadment, the suit cannot be dismissed. Lastly, learned First Appellate Court took up the point for determination 7 SA No. 201 of 2005 no. (iv) and after making independent appreciation of the evidence in the record, both on facts and law, came to the conclusion that learned trial court has not committed any error and arrived at conclusion that the trial court has rightly arrived at the conclusion and dismissed the appeal.
12. At the time of the admission of this appeal, vide order dated 01.02.2018, the following substantial question of law was formulated :-
"Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit in view of Section 26 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957?
13. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel for the appellants relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Somra Manjhi Alias Somaru Manjhi Versus Central Coal Fields Ltd. reported in 1996 2 BLJ 464, para 2 and 5 of which reads as under :
"2. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendants for the following reliefs:
"(A) That by adjudication the plaintiffs right, title, interest and possession over the suit lands be declared and confirmed or in the event of the dispossession a decree for khas possession be passed and suit lands be restored to the plaintiff.
(B) That the plaintiff is entitled for getting compensation and job for the suit lands from the defendants No.1 to 5 and defendant No.6 is not entitled to get compensation for the suit lands.
(C) That by a permanent/temporary in-junction the defendants No.1 to 5 be restrained from making any payment of compensation with respect to suit lands to the defendant No.6."
5. Now the point in question is whether a person deprived of compensation for acquisition under the Act is entitled to come to a Civil Court or not. Definitely, the bar put under Sec.26 of the Act deprives the plaintiff from coming with such point. I have already mentioned that the main purport of the plaint was to get compensation and service of one of the dependants of the plaintiff in lieu of acquisition although the question of title was raised only to bring the suit within the fold of the Civil court. The trick of pleadings and the camouflage of the reliefs are not decisive in the matter but the space of the question or the effect of the reliefs are to be considered to decide the jurisdiction point. Reference in this connection may be made to the case of vatticherukuru Village Panchayat V/s. Nori madhusudan and others, 1991 Supp. (2)Supreme Court Cases 228. In the present case it appears that the reliefs claimed in the suit are nothing but the question as to who is entitled to compensation either the plaintiff or defendant No.6 vis-a-vis as to whose title was there over the acquired land at the time of acquisition and this matter is exclusively within the 8 SA No. 201 of 2005 jurisdiction of the particular tribunal to be set up for the purpose under Sec.17 of the Act. The civil Court can have no jurisdiction as per bar being created under Sec.26 of the Act. The learned court below had rightly held that the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to try the plaintiffs suit. It appears from the order of this Court in relation to the present dispute in C. W. J. C. No.1307 of 1990 (R) raised by defendant No.6 regarding payment of compensation that no tribunal was set up for the purpose of deciding compensation as there were no other claimants except defendant No.6. If the plaintiff feels that he has been deprived of getting legitimate right of compensation, then he is at liberty to move the appropriate authorities for setting up of a tribunal u/sec.17 of the Act and if the same is being denied, he can have the liberty to move before an appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance, but it is maintained that the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction for redressal of the grievance of the plaintiff." (Emphasis supplied) and submits that the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 is self-contained Act having the provisions of a tribunal to be set up under Section 14 of the said Act and as Section 17(2) of the said Act envisages that in case of dispute of title between the persons, who are entitled to receive the compensation or the apportionment thereof is concerned, is to be deposited with the tribunal hence the only corollary is that, when such amount is deposited, learned tribunal constituted under Section 14 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, can and have to adjudicate the title for the limited purpose, for determining the person to whom the compensation is to be paid, as there is no way out, envisaged in the said Act, for the tribunal but for deciding itself the dispute between the parties, more so, because learned tribunal consists of a person, who is or has been or is qualified to be a Judge of High Court and a person of such a stature is expected to and obviously competent to decide the title of the parties, more so, when such tribunal has all the powers which a civil court has, while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in respect of the matters envisaged under Section 14(8) of the said Act. Learned senior counsel for the appellants further submits that both Exhibit C and C/1 are the notices but the contents of the notices do not reveal that the compensation has been fixed according to the agreement of 9 SA No. 201 of 2005 the representatives of the land owner as has erroneously been observed by learned trial court, in fact, the Exhibit C/1 reveals that the compensation has been quantified by the officer deputed by the State Government, hence, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel that as the civil court was not having the jurisdiction to try the suit, hence, the suit ought to have been dismissed by the civil court for not having the jurisdiction to entertain the same. Hence, it is submitted that the judgment and decree of both the courts below be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed being barred by jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain such a suit.
14. Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bhanwar Lal and Another vs. Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf & Others reported in (2014) 16 SCC 51, para 26 of which reads as under :
"26. It would also be profitable to refer to that part of the judgment where the Court gave guidance and the need for a particular approach which is required to deal with such cases. In this behalf the Court specified the modalities as under: (Ramesh Gobindram case [Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, (2010) 8 SCC 726 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 553] , SCC pp. 730-31, paras 11-13) "11. Before we take up the core issue whether the jurisdiction of a civil court to entertain and adjudicate upon disputes regarding eviction of (sic from) wakf property stands excluded under the Wakf Act, we may briefly outline the approach that the courts have to adopt while dealing with such questions.
12. The well-settled rule in this regard is that the civil courts have the jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature except those entertainment whereof is expressly or impliedly barred. The jurisdiction of the civil courts to try suits of civil nature is very expansive. Any statute which excludes such jurisdiction is, therefore, an exception to the general rule that all disputes shall be triable by a civil court. Any such exception cannot be readily inferred by the courts. The court would lean in favour of a construction that would uphold the retention of jurisdiction of the civil courts and shift the onus of proof to the party that asserts that the civil court's jurisdiction is ousted.
13. Even in cases where the statute accords finality to the orders passed by the Tribunals, the court will have to see whether the Tribunal has the power to grant the reliefs which the civil courts would normally grant in suits filed before them. If the answer is in the negative, exclusion of the civil court's jurisdiction would not be ordinarily inferred. In Rajasthan SRTC v. Bal 10 SA No. 201 of 2005 Mukund Bairwa (2) [Rajasthan SRTC v. Bal Mukund Bairwa (2), (2009) 4 SCC 299 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 138 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 812] , a three-Judge Bench of this Court observed: (SCC pp. 302h- 303a) 'There is a presumption that a civil court has jurisdiction. Ouster of civil court's jurisdiction is not to be readily inferred. A person taking a plea contra must establish the same. Even in a case where the jurisdiction of a civil court is sought to be barred under a statute, the civil court can exercise its jurisdiction in respect of some matters particularly when the statutory authority or Tribunal acts without jurisdiction.'"
submits that it is a settled principle of law that when it comes to the matter of exception of the jurisdiction of the civil court being barred by statue, the court would lean in favour of a construction that would uphold the retention of jurisdiction of the civil courts and shift the onus of proof to the party that asserts that the jurisdiction of civil court is ousted and submits that as there is no express provision in the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 that the tribunal constituted under Section 14 of the same, has the power to decide the title, of the parties, hence, it cannot be said that the constitution of such tribunal has ousted the jurisdiction of the civil court, hence it is submitted that the civil court has the jurisdiction to try the suit in view of Section 26 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 and the trial courts having rightly been decreed the suit, which has been upheld by the learned first appellate court hence, this appeal being without any merit be dismissed.
15. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, this court is of the considered view that so far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bhanwar Lal and Another vs. Rajasthan Board of Muslim Wakf & Others (Supra) is concerned, certainly the facts of the same are different from the facts of this case. The said case refers to the bar of jurisdiction of tribunal constituted under Wakf 11 SA No. 201 of 2005 Act, 1995 by Section 85 of that Act and in the facts of that case though the suit was filed by the respondents of that case in the civil court on the application of the respondents itself of that case, stating the suit is not maintainable in view of bar contained in Section 85 of that Act, the civil court returned the plaint accepting the said contention of the respondent and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India went on to set aside the judgment of the High Court resultantly dismissing the application filed by the respondent of that case under Order VII Rule 10, of CPC with direction to the civil court to decide the issue.
16. It is pertinent to refer Sections 14, 17(2) and 26 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, which reads as under :
"14. Method of determining compensation.--(1) Where the amount of any compensation payable under this Act can be fixed by agreement, it shall be paid in accordance with such agreement.
(2) Where no such agreement can be reached, the Central Government shall constitute a Tribunal consisting of a person who is or has been or is qualified to be a judge of a High Court for the purpose of determining the amount.
(3) The Central Government may in any particular case nominate a person having expert knowledge in mining to assist the Tribunal, and where such nomination is made, the person or persons interested may also nominate any other person for the same purpose.
(4) At the commencement of the proceedings before the Tribunal the Central Government and the person interested shall state what in their respective opinions is a fair amount of compensation.
(5) The Tribunal shall, after hearing the dispute, make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just, and specify the person or persons to whom the compensation shall be paid; and in making the award the Tribunal shall have regard to the circumstances of each case and to the foregoing provisions of this Act with respect to the manner in which the amount of compensation shall be determined in so far as the said provisions or any of them may be applicable.
(6) Where there is a dispute as to the person or persons entitled to compensation and the Tribunal finds that more persons than one are entitled to compensation, it shall apportion the amount thereof among such persons and in such manner as it thinks fit.
(7) Nothing in the Arbitration Act, 1940 (10 of 1940), shall apply to any proceedings under this section.
[(8) The Tribunal, in the proceedings before it, shall have all the powers which a civil court has while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), in respect of the following matters, namely:--
(i) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;12 SA No. 201 of 2005
(ii) requiring the discovery and production of any document;
(iii) reception of evidence on affidavits;
(iv) requisitioning any public record from any court or office; and
(v) issuing commissions for examination of witnesses.]"
17. Payment of compensation.-- (1) Xxxxx (2) If the persons interested entitled thereto shall not consent to receive it or if there be any dispute as to the sufficiency of the amount of compensation or the title to receive it or the apportionment thereof, the Central Government shall deposit the amount of compensation with the Tribunal:
Provided that any person admitted to be interested may receive such payment under protest as to the sufficiency of the amount:
[Provided further that every person who claims to be an interest-be entitled (sic) to prefer a claim for compensation before the Tribunal: (sic) or not) (sic) including the person referred to in the preceding proviso shall be entitled to prefer a claim for compensation before the Tribunal:
Provided also that no person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to prefer any such claim before the Tribunal.]
26. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts.--Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no civil court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the Central Government or the competent authority or any other person is empowered by or under this Act to determine."
17. So far as the contention of Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents that learned tribunal constituted under the provisions of the said Act, has no power to adjudicate the title of the contesting parties is concerned, a plain reading of the Section 17(2) of the said Act, goes to show that interalia, in case of dispute in title between the claimants for compensation, the Central Government shall deposit the amount of compensation with the tribunal and Section 14 (5) of the said Act envisages the procedure which is to be adopted by the tribunal and one should not loose sight of the fact about the stature of the person who constitute the tribunal, being a person who is or has been or qualified to be a judge of a High Court, which in other words means a person of experienced judicial mind having all the expertise and traits that is required to adjudicate every aspects of law involved in the matters before such tribunal. Unlike the revenue statutes or unlike the statutes of settlement operation, there is no provision in Coal Bearing 13 SA No. 201 of 2005 Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 that in case of dispute of title, the matter be referred to the civil court rather the power vested under Section 14(8) upon the tribunal, has empowered it to exercise the powers of a civil court while trying the suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, for the purpose of summoning, discovery and production of documents, reception of evidence on affidavits, requisitioning any public record and issuing commissions for examination of witnesses. The vesting of all such powers on the tribunal and under the circumstances discussed above, leads one to only corollary that learned tribunal under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 can adjudicate the disputed title of claimants in respect of acquired property before it at least to the limited extent of as to which of the disputing parties are entitled to the compensation amount deposited by the Central government with it. Hence, this court is not persuaded by the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents that learned tribunal constituted under Section 14 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 does not have the power to adjudicate the title of the claimants in respect of the acquired property.
18. Now coming to the judgment of Somra Manjhi @ Somaru Manjhi vs. Central Coal Fields Ltd. & Ors. (supra) is concerned, in that well discussed judgment, after taking all the relevant laws, the Hon'ble Patna High Court has come to the conclusion that the suit for adjudication of right, title, interest and possession over the lands acquired under the provisions of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, cannot be entertained by the Civil Court in view of the burden of jurisdiction of the civil court contained under Section 26 of the said Act.
19. As rightly, submitted by Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior 14 SA No. 201 of 2005 counsel for the appellant, this court does not find, after carefully going through both the Exhibit C and C/1 that therein, it has been mentioned that the compensation has been fixed according to the agreement of the representatives of the land owners, as claimed by learned trial court in paragraph 57 of its judgment. The same is an error of record committed by the trial court; as such claim of the trial court is not a fact rather the Exhibit C/1 goes to show that such compensation has been quantified by the officers deputed by the State Government.
20. Under such circumstances, this court has no hesitation in holding that the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the instant suit, the suit land of which is a land admittedly acquired under the provisions of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 and admittedly notices for receipt of the compensation under the said Act, has already been issued by the concerned authority. Hence, the sole substantial question of law is answered in affirmative by holding that in the instant case, the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit, in view of Section 26 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957.
21. In view of the answer to the sole substantial question of law, this court is of the considered view that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, FTC-
IV, Chatra, in Title Appeal no. 19 of 2000 dated 05.05.2005 as well as the judgment and decree passed by learned Subordinate Judge, I Chatra in Title Suit no. 7 of 1996 dated 27.03.2000, having been passed without having the jurisdiction to entertain such suits, is set aside and the Title Suit No. 07 of 1996 is dismissed being barred by the jurisdiction of the civil court.
22. In the result, this appeal is allowed on contest but under the circumstances without any costs.
15 SA No. 201 of 200523. Let a copy of this Judgment along with the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
Dated 28th November, 2022 Smita/AFR 16